Named but not shamed

July 10, 2014

Christopher Beedham makes excellent points in his insightful letter about the managerial blight that now paralyses UK universities (“A vote to leave the market”, Letters, 3 July).

There is, I feel, one other important point to make. Before managerialism started to afflict UK higher education, the idea of university was based on pursuing new, often eccentric, ideas. It used to be accepted that academics must be free to pursue new ideas because it is impossible to predict the future impact of research on society. Managerialism makes this impossible because it subjects the university to the demands of the market, which are based on convention and the lowest common denominator. You cannot pursue academic excellence if your university forces you to do only what is regarded as practically useful by the majority at the moment. Thus minority subjects are being eliminated by the ham-fisted research excellence framework and by funding priorities. Why, for instance, should we study the languages and cultures of Central and Eastern Europe when no one is interested in that part of the world? That certain subjects might be useful if there is a future crisis does not interest anyone now because “there is no money in it” and, allegedly, “there is no demand”. Is the spurious argument that “there is no demand” ever acceptable for a university worth its name?

Many brilliant articles have been written by many academic colleagues regarding the crisis of the UK university system. However, nothing ever happens, and nothing ever changes. It is as if academics are satisfied merely to name the problem. But this is not enough.

It is not a matter of just arguing the case convincingly. It is a question of power. It is naive to think that those who shape universities need to be given convincing arguments that their policies are wrong and that when they have seen the light, things will change. Those who run universities are interested in power, not in argumentation. They will continue doing what suits them because they can. What are we going to do about it?

Jan Čulik
Senior lecturer in Czech
University of Glasgow

Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

Please login or register to read this article

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Reader's comments (1)

‘What are we going to do about it?’ is indeed the key question. The answer is that we have to convince the voters of (southern) England that the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the UK’s debt of £2.5 trillion did not come from nowhere, but arose from the specific policies – we need to name them and explain them - pursued by the UK government. Scottish MPs at Westminster have voted overwhelmingly and consistently against those policies. An independent Scotland will pursue people-friendly as opposed to corporate profits-friendly policies, which will not only help the people of Scotland but will show the people of (southern) England that if they want to escape bankruptcy and the shame of complicity in war crimes they should stop voting for policies which lead to those things. The other thing we need to do, especially for England, is to tackle the fragmentation of the left in elections by setting up electoral arrangements in each constituency. Christopher Beedham Department of German, University of St Andrews

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments